¹ú²úAV

UNAT held that UNDT correctly found that it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a de novo investigation of the Appellant’s formal complaint of harassment; rather its task was to determine if there was a proper investigation into the allegations. UNAT held that UNDT awarded adequate compensation to the Appellant for the infringement of his rights with regard to the harassment complaint. UNAT held that UNDT did not make any errors of procedure in deciding upon the weight to be given to written statements tendered by the Appellant. UNAT held that it was not persuaded that UNDT made any errors of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision in concluding that the abolition of the Appellant’s post was not motivated by ill-will or a calculated scheme to remove him. UNAT held that there was no reason to overturn the UNDT’s findings concerning the decision to abolish the Appellant’s post. With respect to the UNDT’s decision concerning the Appellant’s challenge to his non-selection for another post, UNAT held that UNDT did not err in its interpretation of former Staff Rule 109. 1(c), which required that preference be given to the Appellant as a staff member occupying a post due to be abolished, or in finding that the Rule was followed in the selection process for the post. UNAT held that the Appellant failed to establish any errors warranting a reversal of the judgment. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.